DOI 10.1097/scs.0000000000004269
Facial Fractures.
Аннотация
AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study is to retrospectively analyze the incidence of facial fractures along with age, gender predilection, etiology, commonest site, associated dental injuries, and any complications of patients operated in Craniofacial Unit of SDM College of Dental Sciences and Hospital.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
This retrospective study was conducted at the Department of OMFS, SDM College of Dental Sciences, Dharwad from January 2003 to December 2013. Data were recorded for the cause of injury, age and gender distribution, frequency and type of injury, localization and frequency of soft tissue injuries, dentoalveolar trauma, facial bone fractures, complications, concomitant injuries, and different treatment protocols.All the data were analyzed using statistical analysis that is chi-squared test.
RESULTS
A total of 1146 patients reported at our unit with facial fractures during these 10 years. Males accounted for a higher frequency of facial fractures (88.8%). Mandible was the commonest bone to be fractured among all the facial bones (71.2%). Maxillary central incisors were the most common teeth to be injured (33.8%) and avulsion was the most common type of injury (44.6%). Commonest postoperative complication was plate infection (11%) leading to plate removal. Other injuries associated with facial fractures were rib fractures, head injuries, upper and lower limb fractures, etc., among these rib fractures were seen most frequently (21.6%).
CONCLUSION
This study was performed to compare the different etiologic factors leading to diverse facial fracture patterns. By statistical analysis of this record the authors come to know about the relationship of facial fractures with gender, age, associated comorbidities, etc.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.